Holland v. State
| Decision Date | 01 October 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. CR–14–1019,CR–14–1019 |
| Citation | 471 S.W.3d 179,2015 Ark. 341 |
| Parties | Andrew M. Holland, Appellant v. State of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Lassiter & Cassinelli, by: Erin Cassinelli, Little Rock; and Jeff Rosenzweig, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Rebecca Kane, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
A jury in the Pulaski County Circuit Court found appellant Andrew M. Holland guilty of sexual assault in the first degree and sexual assault in the second degree. Respectively, he received concurrent terms of forty and thirty years in prison. For reversal, Holland contends that the circuit court erred by (1) permitting the introduction of evidence under the “pedophile exception”; (2) by not allowing evidence of the victims' motives to falsely accuse him of the crimes; and (3) by denying him access to one of the victim's psychological records. We affirm on all issues.
By an amended felony information, the prosecuting attorney in Pulaski County charged Holland with one count of first-degree sexual assault as perpetrated against a minor, XB, and with a single count of second-degree sexual assault as committed against another minor, JD. The evidence adduced at trial reflects that both boys were being raised in single- parent homes by their mothers. In the case of XB, Holland was a long-time family acquaintance, and XB's mother enlisted Holland's assistance in providing discipline to XB after he began to experience behavioral problems. With respect to JD, he developed an interest in rap music when he was in the eighth grade. Holland had a recording studio in his home and had cultivated the musical careers of other young rap artists. JD solicited Holland's services as a manager, and Holland agreed to do so after speaking with JD's mother. Under Holland's tutelage, JD performed shows in Little Rock and Conway. Holland also chaperoned JD and another boy on a trip to New York to audition for a television show.
XB, who was twenty years old at the time of trial, testified that, between the ages of thirteen and fifteen and at a time when he was getting into trouble at school, he was at Holland's house one day watching television when Holland asked him to come into his bedroom. XB said that Holland directed him to sit on Holland's knee and that Holland began rubbing XB's leg. XB recalled that Holland next placed a pornographic movie into the DVD player and told XB to remove his clothes and get into the bed. Holland also undressed and lay behind XB under the covers. XB testified that Holland fondled XB's penis, and XB stated that he felt the head of Holland's penis inside his “butt.” XB said that, while this was occurring, a lot of thoughts were going through his mind and that he did not understand what was happening. XB stated that Holland commented on the large size of XB's penis. XB further testified that he returned to the living room and that Holland gave him a bottle of lotion to use to “finish up.” A few years later, XB was adjudicated as a delinquent juvenile for committing the offenses of commercial burglary and theft of property. He disclosed the abuse to the leader of a group home in February 2010.
In his testimony, JD related that he was fifteen years old when he met Holland in July 2010. He said that Holland began randomly touching him and rubbing his thighs almost immediately after he had begun to visit Holland's home. JD testified that the touching escalated shortly thereafter when Holland asked him to sit on his bed. He stated that Holland kissed him on his cheek and neck and that Holland put his hand inside JD's underwear and felt his penis for approximately fifteen minutes. JD testified that Holland stated, “My little homey has a big dick,” when he reached inside JD's underwear. JD testified that similar behavior occurred on a number of occasions. He also said that Holland would sometimes place JD's hand on Holland's penis, both outside and under Holland's clothes, and that Holland had shown him pornographic images of penises on his laptop.
JD further testified that he learned of another accusation against Holland from reading a newspaper article in March 2011 and that Holland stopped managing him during that time frame. He also acknowledged that he was placed in Rivendell after an altercation with his mother in October 2011. JD testified that he disclosed the abuse when answering questions during the intake process at Rivendell in November 2011 when he was moved into long-term care at that facility.
In addition to the victims, the State offered the testimony of MJ; the testimony of two men from California, JG and JP; and a 1989 probation order from California reflecting Holland's conviction on two counts of “Lewd/Lascivious Acts with Child under 14 Years.” The victims in that case were JG and another boy, RR. MJ, a twenty-eight-year-old man from North Little Rock, testified that when he was young, he and other boys spent time at Holland's house. He said that Holland paid him for helping with yard work. MJ testified that in November 1999, when he was fourteen years old, he was walking home one night past Holland's house and that Holland invited him inside. According to MJ, Holland turned on a pornographic movie, which caused MJ to have an erection. MJ said that Holland performed oral sex on him and commented on the size of MJ's penis. MJ stated that they went into the bedroom and that Holland put lotion between his own legs and instructed MJ to lie on top of him and to “hump” him, while Holland lay on his stomach. Afterwards, they changed positions. MJ testified that Holland gave him money and told him not to tell anyone. MJ further testified that he told his uncle what had happened and that he also spoke with the police.
JG testified that he met Holland in California in 1988 when he was thirteen years old and being raised by his mother. He was playing basketball one day when Holland approached him and offered to buy him a new pair of shoes, as JG's shoes had holes in them. JG said that Holland gave him a ride home and that Holland told his mother that he would take JG under his wing. One night after skating, JG spent the night with Holland. JG said that he was asleep in bed and awoke to find Holland rubbing Icy Hot on his legs. JG testified that Holland put lotion on his hands and started rubbing JG's penis. When JG ejaculated, Holland instructed JG to hold his own penis in his hand and say, “You're Andy's little king.” JG described another incident when Holland took him to an empty apartment where Holland tried to fondle JG using “Motion Lotion” as a lubricant. JG testified that he made Holland stop and that Holland became angry and threw money at him.
In his testimony, JP testified that he and Holland lived in the same apartment complex and that Holland was one of the adults who played football with him and his friends. JP stated that Holland also helped his grandmother, with whom JP lived, and that Holland assumed the role of a father figure to him with his grandmother's blessing. He said that, in 1988, Holland asked him to come over to play Nintendo. JP testified that Holland put on a pornographic movie and asked JP if he could make his penis hard. JP said that Holland began rubbing JP's penis on top of his clothes and then asked him to unbuckle his pants and go into the bedroom. JP saw that there were many types of lotions in Holland's bedroom, and he said that Holland masturbated him and made him masturbate Holland. JP said that this was the first of many similar episodes. He further testified about an occasion where Holland masturbated and performed oral sex on both him and another boy named RR and also required them both to masturbate him. This incident took place at a boys' group home where Holland worked.
Based on this and other testimony, the jury found Holland guilty as charged and sentenced him as previously stated in this opinion. Holland appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed his convictions and sentences. Holland v. State,2014 Ark. App. 644, 448 S.W.3d 220. This court granted Holland's petition for review. When we grant a petition for review, we treat the appeal as if it had been filed originally in this court. Schneider v. State,2015 Ark. 152, 459 S.W.3d 296.
Holland argues on appeal that the circuit court erred by permitting evidence of prior misconduct under the pedophile exception to Rule 404(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence. Under this point, Holland first challenges the testimony of MJ. He argues that evidence admitted under Rule 404(b)is subject to the balancing test imposed by Rule 403, and he maintains that MJ's testimony was unfairly prejudicial because MJ's allegation was brought to the attention of law enforcement officials in 1999; because the allegations were investigated and not brought to prosecution; because the statute of limitations has since expired; and because he is not able to defend himself due to the passage of time. Holland also contends that the testimony was unfairly prejudicial because MJ's testimony was unreliable, as it was shown on cross-examination that his testimony at trial materially differed from the statements that MJ made to the police at the time of the occurrence.
Also within this point, Holland claims error in the admission of the testimony of JG and JP, as well as Holland's previous convictions in California. He contends that the evidence was too remote in time and not sufficiently similar to the acts for which he was on trial.
Evidence is not admissible under Rule 404(b)simply to show a prior...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baumann v. State
...decision, but requires that the circuit court act improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration. Id. ; Holland v. State , 2015 Ark. 341, 471 S.W.3d 179. Additionally, an evidentiary decision will not be reversed absent a showing of prejudice. Hicks v. State , 2017 Ark. 262, 526......
-
Vaughn v. State
...members of the patient's family.This privilege governs in both criminal and civil state court proceedings. See Holland v. State , 2015 Ark. 341, at 14, 471 S.W.3d 179, 188 ; Ark. R. Evid. 101. In addition to the evidentiary privilege, Arkansas statutes also provide that "confidential relati......
-
Vaughn v. State
...Arkansas's psychotherapist-patient privilege set forth in Johnson v. State , 342 Ark. 186, 27 S.W.3d 405 (2000), and Holland v. State , 2015 Ark. 341, 471 S.W.3d 179, does not apply because "the counseling would have been part of the investigative and prosecutorial process and not independe......
-
Hortenberry v. State
...its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See Ark. R. Evid. 403 ; see, e.g. , Holland v. State , 2015 Ark. 341, 471 S.W.3d 179 (stating that evidence to be admitted under the pedophile exception is also subject to exclusion under Rule 403 ); Green v.......